II

In the light of what is happening now in the world-war 1914-1917, and

the world-wide views expressed about the German Kaiser, it may be

interesting to write Pitt's opinion of Napoleon, though they are

scarcely to be mentioned in the same breath. The former, who is the

creator of the world-tragedy, is a mere shadow in comparison to the

great genius of whom Müller, the Swiss historian, says: "Quite

impartially and truly, as before God, I must say that the variety of

his knowledge, the acuteness of his observations, the solidity of his

understanding (not dazzling wit), his grand and comprehensive views,

filled me with astonishment, and his manner of speaking to me with

love for him. By his genius and his disinterested goodness, he has

also conquered me." But I give another authority, Wieland, the German

author, who was disillusioned when he had the honour of a conversation

with Napoleon on the field of Jena. Amongst the many topics they spoke

of was the restoration of public worship in France by Napoleon. In his

reply to the German writer as to why religion was not more

philosophical and in harmony with the spirit of the times, Napoleon

replied, "My dear Wieland, religion is not meant for philosophers!

They have no faith either in me or my priests. As to those who do

believe, it would be difficult to give them, or leave them too much of

the marvellous. If I had to frame a religion for philosophers, it

would be just the reverse of that of the credulous part of mankind."

Wieland's testimony of Napoleon is quite as appreciative as that of

Müller, and coming from him to the great conqueror of his native land

makes it an invaluable piece of impartial history which reverses the

loose and vindictive libels that were insidiously circulated by a gang

of paid scoundrels in order to prejudice public opinion against him.

Wieland, among other eulogies of him, says: "I have never beheld any

one more calm, more simple, more mild or less ostentatious in

appearance; nothing about him indicated the feeling of power in a

great monarch." He conversed with him for an hour and a half, "to the

great surprise of the whole assembly."

Here we have a brief but very high testimony from two men of literary

distinction, who had formed their impressions by personal contact. The

present writer's belief is that had members of the British Government

been guided by reason and sound judgment instead of blind, wicked

prejudice; had they accepted overtures made to them from time to time

by the head of the French nation during his rule, we should not have

been engaged during the last five years in a world-war watering the

earth with the blood of our race with reckless extravagance. The great

soldier-statesman foretold what would happen. What irony that we

should be in deadly conflict with the Power which, as an ally, helped

to destroy him and is now engaged in frantic efforts to destroy us!

Had Pitt and those who acted with him been endowed with human wisdom,

he would not have written the following lines, but would have held out

the olive-branch of peace and goodwill to men on earth:--

I see (says Pitt in a scrap of MS. found amongst his papers)

various and opposite qualities--all the great and all the little

passions unfavourable to public tranquillity united in the

breast of one man, and of that man, unhappily, whose personal

caprice can scarce fluctuate for an hour without affecting the

destiny of Europe. I see the inward workings of fear struggling

with pride in an ardent, enterprising, and tumultuous mind. I

see all the captious jealousy of conscious usurpation, dreaded,

detested, and obeyed, the giddiness and intoxication of splendid

but unmerited success, the arrogance, the presumption, the

selfwill of unlimited and idolized power, and more dreadful than

all in the plenitude of authority, the restless and incessant

activity of guilt, but unsated ambition.

This scrap of mere phrases indicates a mind that was far beneath the

calibre of that of a real statesman. It was a terrible fate for Great

Britain to have at the head of the Government a man whose public life

was a perpetual danger to the state. Had Pitt been the genius his

eloquence led his contemporaries to believe he was, he would have

availed himself of the opportunities the Great Figure, who was making

the world rock with his genius, afforded the British Government from

time to time of making peace on equitable terms. But Pitt's vision of

the large things that constituted human existence was feeble and

narrowed down to the nightmare of the "tumultuous mind" whose sole

aim was the conquest of the Continent of Europe and the invasion of

these Islands. The "usurper" must be subdued by the force of arms, the

squandering of British wealth, and the sanguinary sacrifice of human

lives. That was the only diplomacy his mental organism could evolve.

He used his power of expression, which was great, to such good purpose

that his theories reflected on his supporters. Had Pitt been talented

in matters of international diplomacy, as he was in the other affairs

of Government, he would have seized the opportunity of making the

Peace of Amiens universal and durable. It is futile to contend that

Napoleon was irreconcilable. His great ambition was to form a concrete

friendship with our Government, which he foresaw could be fashioned

into a continental arrangement, intricate and entangled as all the

elements were at the time. Napoleon never ceased to deplore the

impossibility of coming to any reciprocal terms with England so long

as Pitt's influence was in the ascendant, and he and a large public in

France and in this country profoundly believed that Fox had not only

the desire but the following, and all the diplomatic qualities to

bring it about. Any close, impartial student of history, free from the

popular prejudices which assailed Napoleon's origin and advent to

power, cannot but concede the great possibilities of this view.

It was only statesmen like Fox who had unconfused perception, and

inveighed against the stupidity of ministers acclaimed by an ignorant

public as demigods. Napoleon's starting-points were to "Surmount

great obstacles and attain great ends. There must be prudence, wisdom,

and dexterity." "We should," he said, "do everything by reason and

calculation, estimating the trouble, the sacrifice, and the pleasure

entailed in gaining a certain end, in the same way as we work out any

sum in arithmetic by addition and subtraction. But reason and logic

should be the guiding principle in all we do. That which is bad in

politics, even though in strict accordance with law, is inexcusable

unless absolutely necessary, and whatever goes beyond that is

criminal." These were briefly the general principles on which he

shaped his ends, and they are pretty safe guides. His mentality, as I

have said, was so complete that it covered every subtle and charming

form of thought and knowledge, even to the smallest affairs of life.

No theologians knew more than he or could converse so clearly on the

many different religions; and he was as well versed in the intricacies

of finance and civil law as he was in the knowledge of art,

literature, and statecraft.

His memory was prodigious, and a common saying of his was that "A head

without a memory was like a fort without a garrison." He never used a

word that was not full of meaning. The unparalleled amount of

literature that surrounds his name teems with concise, vivid sentences

on every conceivable subject, and the more they are read and studied,

the more wonderful appears their wisdom. On the eve of a great battle,

his exhortations to his soldiers were like magic, burning hot into

their souls, making them irresistible. The popular idea in the

country in his time, when passion ran rampant, and indeed, in a hazy

way, affects some people's minds now, was that he and his family were

mere perfidious Corsicans without mental endowments or character, and

unworthy of the stations in life in which his genius had placed them.

His sisters have been caricatured as having the manners of the

kitchen, and loose morals, and his brothers as mediocrities. A great

deal of the same stuff is now written about other people who have

occupied and do occupy high stations in life.

Here is Napoleon's own version of each of his brothers and sisters and

of his mother. It was given in course of conversation to Las Cases at

St. Helena. "The Emperor," he says, "speaks of his people; of the

slight assistance he has received at their hands, and of the trouble

they had been to him; he goes on to say that for the rest, we should

always, as a last resort, endeavour to form a judgment by analogy.

What family, in similar circumstances, would have done better? And,

after all, does not mine furnish, on the whole, a record which does me

honour? Joseph would be an ornament to society wherever he might

happen to reside; Lucien, an ornament to any political assembly;

Jerome, had he come to years of discretion, would have made an

excellent ruler; I had great hopes of him. Louis would have been

popular, and a remarkable man anywhere. My sister Elisa had a man's

intellect, a brave heart, and she would have met adversity

philosophically. Caroline is a very clever and capable woman.

Pauline, perhaps the most beautiful woman of her day, has been, and

will be until the end, the most charming creature living. As for my

mother, she is worthy of every respect. What family as numerous could

make a finer impression?"

If unprejudiced history counts for anything, this testimony is true,

and it is doubtful whether any of the ruling families of France who

preceded them, or even those of other countries, who took part in

bringing about their downfall (taking them as a whole), could tabulate

a better record of worthiness. Certainly no previous ruler of France

ever made the efforts that the head of the Bonaparte family did to

fashion his brothers and sisters into filling the positions he had

made for them in a way that became princes and princesses.

The fact is, the political mind was whirling and permeated with the

idea of his ambition only, and the human aversion to the introduction

of new and improved conditions of life. The ruling classes were seized

with alarm lest the spirit of the French Revolution would become

popular in this country, and that not only their possessions might be

confiscated, but that their lives would be in peril if the doctrines

he stood for were to take hold of the public imagination. They were

afraid, as they are now, of the despotism of democracy, and so they

kept the conflict raging for over twenty years. Then came the fall of

the greatest genius and most generous warrior-statesman who has ever

figured in the world's history; he had staggered creation with his

formidable power, and the instruments of his downfall flattered

themselves that the day of Divine vengeance had arrived.